III. Procedural Summary
Parties filed prehearing opening briefs on April 22, 2002, and reply briefs on May 6, 2002, on legal issues relating to the Commission's authority to impose cost responsibility charges both on DA and DL customers. Opening and reply testimony was submitted in June 2002 and addressed both DA and DL issues.
By ALJ oral ruling, DL issues were bifurcated into a separate hearing phase. Parties accordingly submitted supplemental testimony on September 11, 2002 and supplemental reply testimony on September 23, 2002. Evidentiary hearings on DL issues began on October 7, 2002 and continued intermittently through October 18, 2002.
During the course of the hearings, various parties ("Settling Parties") entered into settlement discussions on certain issues relevant to this phase. Pursuant to Rule 51.1 (b), on October 2, 2002, the Settling Parties issued a notice of settlement conference for October 9, 2002. A draft version of a Settlement Agreement was served on all parties on October 8, 2002. Subsequent to the settlement conference, all parties were given the opportunity to submit informal comments on the proposed settlement to the Settling Parties.
On October 17, 2002, a motion was filed for adoption of a Settlement Agreement sponsored jointly by a number of parties to the proceeding.9 Because the scope of the Settlement Agreement addressed only Customer Generation, but not municipal load issues, the proceeding was further bifurcated.
Comments on the Settlement Agreement were filed on October 31, 2002, and reply comments on November 6, 2002. 10 In comments, various parties opposed certain provisions in the Settlement, and suggested alternative revisions. Only two parties, ORA and SDG&E, argued that the Settlement did not impose enough costs on Customer Generation load. The remaining parties opposed to the Settlement argued that it imposed too many costs on Customer Generation load.
Post-hearing opening briefs were filed on November 7, 2002 and reply briefs on November 14, 2002. In view of the settlement, parties shortened or waived certain cross-examination. The underlying testimony of witnesses in this phase of the proceeding was received into evidence without objection. In the joint motion, Settling Parties argue that no hearings are necessary prior to adoption of the Settlement Agreement in view of the evidentiary record already before the Commission. No party asked for evidentiary hearings on the merits of the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, we conclude that written comments in response to the motion provide a sufficient basis to evaluate the merits of the Settlement Agreement in view of the evidentiary record on parties' underlying testimony that is already in the record.
Thus, the basis for adjudicating issues in this phase of the proceeding, the record consists of (1) the evidence developed through written testimony and oral cross examination on the underlying merits of issues in dispute and (2) the Settlement Agreement which represents a negotiated compromise of certain parties and the written comments filed in response to this agreement.
9 The Joint Settling Parties include Arden Realty, Inc., Building Owners and Managers Association of California, California Energy Commission (CEC), California Independent Petroleum Association, Clarus Energy Partners, L.P., Cummins West, Inc., Energy Producers and Users Coalition (EPUC) [EPUC is an ad hoc coalition representing the electric end use and customer generation interests of the following companies: Aera Energy LLC, BP America Inc. (including Atlantic Richfield Company), Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Texaco Exploration and Production Inc., Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products US, ExxonMobil Power and Gas Services Inc., on behalf of Exxon Mobil Corporation, THUMS Long Beach Company, Occidental Elk Hills, Inc., Tosco Corporation a Subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum Company, and Valero Refining Company - California], Goodrich Aerostructures Group, Hawthorne Power Systems, Hess Microgen, International Power Technology, Kern Oil and Refining Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, next edge, Inc., Nextek Power Systems, Inc., PG&E, Onsite Energy Corporation, Paramount Petroleum Corporation, RealEnergy, Inc., Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, Edison, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), University of California/California State University, and USS-POSCO Industries. 10 The following parties submitted comments on the Settlement Agreement: Agricultural Energy Consumers Association (AECA), Alliance for Retail Energy Markets and the Western Power Trading Forum (AReM/WPTF), California Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority (CPA), California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA), California Solar Energy Industries Association (CalSEIA), Capstone Turbine Corporation, Ingersoll-Rand Energy Systems, Bowman Power Systems, CoGen Equipment Solutions, Inc., and Sempra Energy Connections (collectively, Capstone), Catholic Healthcare West (CHW), Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT), County of Los Angeles (LA County), County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles (Districts), Eastside Power Authority (Eastside), Joint Settling Parties (as specified above), Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) and SDG&E. In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) submitted a letter to Commissioner Lynch dated October 30, 2002, and DWR filed reply comments on November 4, 2002, on the Settlement Agreement.
